BIPINKUMAR ALIAS RANCHHODLAL MADHAVDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is treated as appeal. In this case an order was passed under sec. 109 Cri. P. C. without holding an inquiry on the ground that the person concerned had expressed his will- ingness to give surety and to furnish security. Sec. 117(1) Cri. Pro.Code reads as under :

(2.) Even when the person is willing to give surety sec. 117(1) requires that the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Sec. 118(1) Cri. Pro. Code provides that if upon such inquiry it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior as the case may be that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond with or without sureties the Magistrate shall make an older accordingly. It is only if these facts are proved that an order can be passed under sec. 118 Cri. Pro code.

(3.) The order passed by the learned Magistrate is therefore set aside and he is ordered to comply with the provisions of secs. 117 and 118 Cri. Pro. Code. The accused who is in jail should be produced before the Magistrate for passing necessary orders. Application allowed.